JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the parties: 2. This letters patent appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2009 whereby learned Single Judge of this court has allowed the writ petition bearing CWJC No. 4314/2001* and quashed the orders dated 31.12.1997 and 16.1.2001 contained in Annexures-12 and 14 of the writ petition and directed the appellants to reinstate the writ petitioner in service with consequential benefits. 3. The writ petitioner, who is respondent no. 1 in this appeal, was employed as a Helper in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. On a written report dated 12.4.1990 by the then Depot Superintendent, Saharsa a criminal case was lodged against him and a departmental proceeding was also initiated mainly for the charge that he had assaulted the then Depot Superintendent on account of a dispute relating to payment of salary for a particular month. The writ petitioner was an office bearer of a recognized Trade Union at the relevant time. 4. From the order under appeal we find that an argument was advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner that he had been punished and dismissed from service without there being any evidence collected against him in course of enquiry. Such act of the employer was described as perverse. On the other hand on behalf of the appellants it was pointed out that the then Depot Superintendent had been examined in course of enquiry and his statement supported the charges against the writ petitioner and on that basis charges had been found proved in the domestic enquiry leading to order of punishment. 5. The writ court has accepted that statement of the then Depot Superintendent, by way of evidence, was available against the writ petitioner but it held that such evidence was not corroborated by any other independent witness or supporting evidence and, therefore, the writ court found it difficult to uphold the order of punishment. In the words of the writ court-"material and the evidence not being sufficient, it is difficult for this court to record a finding of guilt against the petitioner". On that finding relief was granted to the writ petitioner as noticed above. 6. The law relating to disciplinary proceedings is well settled. The writ court has limited jurisdiction to interfere only where it finds that the proceeding conducted by the authorities is unfair or where the conclusions are based upon no evidence. On that finding relief was granted to the writ petitioner as noticed above. 6. The law relating to disciplinary proceedings is well settled. The writ court has limited jurisdiction to interfere only where it finds that the proceeding conducted by the authorities is unfair or where the conclusions are based upon no evidence. Certainly, this case does not come under either of the two categories and it cannot be said, on the basis of materials on record, that there was no evidence against the writ petitioner before the disciplinary authorities or the enquiry officer. 7. Before us it was submitted on behalf of respondent no. 1 that he has been acquitted in the criminal case and, therefore, as per law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2006 SC 2129 , it was not permissible for the enquiry officer to record a contrary view. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention towards paragraphs 31 and 32 of that judgment which highlight that where the same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court came to the conclusion that prosecution had not proved the guilt and when there was honourable acquittal of the employee, then the fact of such acquittal is required to be taken note of. It was pointed out that in this case the criminal court acquitted the writ petitioner because the then Depot Superintendent could not be examined and only one witness could be produced who was hostile and on that basis the court gave benefit of doubt to the writ petitioner and acquitted him. 9. Having considered the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court and the facts of this case, we are of the view that the acquittal of the writ petitioner by the criminal court was neither a honourable acquittal on the basis of any positive finding in his favour nor the material witness who has been examined in the departmental proceeding was examined in the criminal trial. Hence, in our considered view the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authorities have committed no illegality in their decision against the writ petitioner. 10. In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, we have no option but to set aside the order under appeal and to dismiss the writ petition. As a result, the appeal succeeds but without any costs.